3 ms·

Version control in some form? Yes, absolutely. Git? No way. The needs and customs of a lawmaking body are vastly different than the needs of engineers.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
So you assert, without providing even a single example.
- compiler-guy 1y ago
  I would think that those who claim that git is a good tool for an environment completely unlike software development and doesn't even normally use text-files would be able to make a better case than this. You don't provide a single example either. But sure, lets change the entire legislation workflow to conform to Linus's idea of a good product.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    >I would think that those who claim that git is a good tool for an environment completely unlike software development Laws consist of strings of characters in a particular sequence, occasionally you don't want to be additive but subtractive, and these sequences are grouped into multiple papers. It's just code. Code on paper, but code nonetheless. They can't easily check what the previous version was, or compare two or more different branches. Lots of strike-throughs and other such crap. Many of the defects in legislation and the legislative process itself stem from how they try (so desperately) to keep it from being like code. Trying to hide who edited what and when. Fuck, Congress has this big long drawn out process for reconciling two slightly different versions of the same piece of code... with every single act. You've simply never considered this. >But sure, lets change the entire legislation workflow to I wasn't changing any workflows. I was just going to dump existing legislation into a repo so I could see what it would look like. Not sure what you're reading into this. You're stomping on an experiment that someone was going to run for free in a way that didn't interfere with you and ridiculing the idea in casual conversation. >and doesn't even normally use text-files It's text. On a "file" (which is what we called bundles of associated paper back before computer filesystems, they'd put them in a filing cabinet).
    - compiler-guy 1y ago
      All of this is an argument for version control--which I wholly support, and did from the first message. But not an argument for git, which even sucks at things like tracking where code is moved to and from. Yes, yes, you can use "-C -C -C" if you really want to know and have time to wait, but that is terrible compared to systems that track moves as first class happenings. And no one was offering to run this experiment for free that I could see. You were proposing a law. If you are proposing a free experiment, great! more power to you. Now convince the government to actually adopt it. And yes, the product is text, but the current workflow is not text-file based at all.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
        >All of this is an argument for version control-- Do you know of another version control system that is superior to git? Is there something special about legislation which makes it incompatible with git, that another version control system would be better at? There's nothing sacred or special about the sausage-making that is legislation. It is a clunky process done poorly with bad tools. >But not an argument for git, which even sucks at things like tracking where code is moved to and from. Which is good, because that's not an issue in legislation. What's important is who authored the code, when it was introduced, what changes have been made to it since, and tracking things like votes/ratification/signing. These are all doable in git. No one much cares if subsection eleventy clause 9b-ii says in subsection eleventy or is moved to umpty-four. I can see how that can be a problem in software, but the processors legislation runs on don't much care. >And no one was offering to run this experiment for free that I could see. I don't think dang or anyone else is going back around and ninja-deleting my comments, they are there for everyone to see. Like this one... >>>I wanted to do the Constitution (and US law in general) in git, but dates before unix epoch weren't possible. I don't think it's since been fixed. I had went so far as to start digging up treaties (about 700 of them, ratified) and draft constitutions (would have been non-master branches of some sort). Maybe you got my stuff confused with someone else's. The comment tree seems to move around as they're re-ranked.
        compiler-guy 1y ago
unethical_ban 1y ago
git specifically, maybe not, but something like source code control is reasonable. Passing new legislation adds, removes or modifies text from an entity's legal documents (US or State code, for example). You see this in bills that say things like "This modifies Section 47, subsection 3, paragraph 2 to say 'people' instead of 'persons'". So a bill can be thought of as the commit message, and implementation of the bill are the changes to the text. The executive is the "merge approver".

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago

So you assert, without providing even a single example.

compiler-guy 1y ago
I would think that those who claim that git is a good tool for an environment completely unlike software development and doesn't even normally use text-files would be able to make a better case than this. You don't provide a single example either. But sure, lets change the entire legislation workflow to conform to Linus's idea of a good product.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  >I would think that those who claim that git is a good tool for an environment completely unlike software development Laws consist of strings of characters in a particular sequence, occasionally you don't want to be additive but subtractive, and these sequences are grouped into multiple papers. It's just code. Code on paper, but code nonetheless. They can't easily check what the previous version was, or compare two or more different branches. Lots of strike-throughs and other such crap. Many of the defects in legislation and the legislative process itself stem from how they try (so desperately) to keep it from being like code. Trying to hide who edited what and when. Fuck, Congress has this big long drawn out process for reconciling two slightly different versions of the same piece of code... with every single act. You've simply never considered this. >But sure, lets change the entire legislation workflow to I wasn't changing any workflows. I was just going to dump existing legislation into a repo so I could see what it would look like. Not sure what you're reading into this. You're stomping on an experiment that someone was going to run for free in a way that didn't interfere with you and ridiculing the idea in casual conversation. >and doesn't even normally use text-files It's text. On a "file" (which is what we called bundles of associated paper back before computer filesystems, they'd put them in a filing cabinet).
  - compiler-guy 1y ago
    All of this is an argument for version control--which I wholly support, and did from the first message. But not an argument for git, which even sucks at things like tracking where code is moved to and from. Yes, yes, you can use "-C -C -C" if you really want to know and have time to wait, but that is terrible compared to systems that track moves as first class happenings. And no one was offering to run this experiment for free that I could see. You were proposing a law. If you are proposing a free experiment, great! more power to you. Now convince the government to actually adopt it. And yes, the product is text, but the current workflow is not text-file based at all.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
      >All of this is an argument for version control-- Do you know of another version control system that is superior to git? Is there something special about legislation which makes it incompatible with git, that another version control system would be better at? There's nothing sacred or special about the sausage-making that is legislation. It is a clunky process done poorly with bad tools. >But not an argument for git, which even sucks at things like tracking where code is moved to and from. Which is good, because that's not an issue in legislation. What's important is who authored the code, when it was introduced, what changes have been made to it since, and tracking things like votes/ratification/signing. These are all doable in git. No one much cares if subsection eleventy clause 9b-ii says in subsection eleventy or is moved to umpty-four. I can see how that can be a problem in software, but the processors legislation runs on don't much care. >And no one was offering to run this experiment for free that I could see. I don't think dang or anyone else is going back around and ninja-deleting my comments, they are there for everyone to see. Like this one... >>>I wanted to do the Constitution (and US law in general) in git, but dates before unix epoch weren't possible. I don't think it's since been fixed. I had went so far as to start digging up treaties (about 700 of them, ratified) and draft constitutions (would have been non-master branches of some sort). Maybe you got my stuff confused with someone else's. The comment tree seems to move around as they're re-ranked.
      - compiler-guy 1y ago

unethical_ban 1y ago

git specifically, maybe not, but something like source code control is reasonable. Passing new legislation adds, removes or modifies text from an entity's legal documents (US or State code, for example). You see this in bills that say things like "This modifies Section 47, subsection 3, paragraph 2 to say 'people' instead of 'persons'". So a bill can be thought of as the commit message, and implementation of the bill are the changes to the text. The executive is the "merge approver".